The number one of 1975 was a weak number one because he won a little, but it was enough : it was Arthur Ashe . Although the ATP Masters had counted the WCT Dallas would not be number one , but in fact it was .

1977 rather think is attributable to Connors at which the ATP did not count the two Masters , stuck Vilas , Borg away .

The 1978 is one of Connors , Borg did a great year but from Wimbledon on Connors dominated the circuit .

The number one of 1975 was a weak number one because he won a little, but it was enough : it was Arthur Ashe . Although the ATP Masters had counted the WCT Dallas would not be number one , but in fact it was .

1977 rather think is attributable to Connors at which the ATP did not count the two Masters , stuck Vilas , Borg away .

The 1978 is one of Connors , Borg did a great year but from Wimbledon on Connors dominated the circuit .

Click to expand...

The year of 1978 is clearly Borg by a decent margin. Borg won the Italian, French and Wimbledon and was in the final of the US Open. He won 18 tournaments that year with a better winning percentage than Connors.

Connors won 14 tournaments that year plus the US Open over Borg.

Borg was named the 1978 World Champion by the International Tennis Federation.

In 1977 I would say that Borg is better than Connors also but you could argue that Vilas had a better year than both although I believe Borg was the best player for level of play.

It appears that you like Connors. I like him also but Connors wasn't of Borg's level in those years.

Titles heavier ones Connors ( US Indoor , US Clay , Washington Stars more of Rome )
Borg in the lead up to Wimbledon then did not win more and Connors overrunning.
Clearly for the ATP ranking .

In 1977 Borg far behind the two head .
After Wimbledon took leave while others dominated .
In fact, the ATP does not discuss on Borg , is back.
He had a chance at the Masters but wasted .
It was not a large Borg in 77 , in 78 but is not capitalized .
Connors and it was finally No. 1 ranking .

Titles heavier ones Connors ( US Indoor , US Clay , Washington Stars more of Rome )
Borg in the lead up to Wimbledon then did not win more and Connors overrunning.
Clearly for the ATP ranking .

In 1977 Borg far behind the two head .
After Wimbledon took leave while others dominated .
In fact, the ATP does not discuss on Borg , is back.
He had a chance at the Masters but wasted .
It was not a large Borg in 77 , in 78 but is not capitalized .
Connors and it was finally No. 1 ranking .

Click to expand...

I don't think so. You're basically using three tournaments to equal one. I could use the same example with Borg except Borg won a few more tournaments, more majors, beat Connors more than Connors beat him and was named World Champion by the ITF.

How close was Mc Enroe to be considered number one in 1979? had he faced and beaten Borg at Flushing Meadows?

What places him second is not only what Borg won but also what he failed to make an impact on.He skipped the french but, worse than that, court number two and Tim Gullikson´s inspiration made his Wimbledon tournament a complete fail ( in singles)

Superb performance in Dallas , the other victories until the summer are less relevant .
After curls US Open , San Francisco , Wembley , Stockholm .
But Borg is away .

In 1980, Borg does not repeat exactly does a great year in 1979 but the same and even Mac won a little less (only three heavyweight titles USO , Challenge Cup and Wembley ) .
Connors who in 1979 had fainted recovers slowly winning five great titles - US Indoor , Birmingham , Dallas , N.Conway and Tokyo )

Summary :
Connors went to skyrocket in the indoor season .
Borg recovered by the usual amazing European season and had a clear advantage after Wimbledon then no one guessed .
Connors had just behind the entrance of the straight US Open because he had won at Indy and Washington .

Borg had already been designated after Wimbledon Champion ITF ( as always .. even in the 76 & 77 !! ?? !! ) .
But 1978 was not finished .

A Flushing Borg played the number 1 , a major on the concrete , the US Open and Grand Slam .... but Connors won .
The last season was not decisive because they won both very little ( Tokyo - Sidney ) .

The ITF evaluated only the majors .
The ATP evaluated all the major tournaments .
I have always considered all the major tournaments .

Summary :
Connors went to skyrocket in the indoor season .
Borg recovered by the usual amazing European season and had a clear advantage after Wimbledon then no one guessed .
Connors had just behind the entrance of the straight US Open because he had won at Indy and Washington .
Borg had already been designated after Wimbledon Champion ITF ( as always .. even in the 76 & 77 !! ?? !! ) .
But 1978 was not finished .
A Flushing Borg played the number 1 , a major on the concrete , the US Open and Grand Slam .... but Connors won .
The last season was not decisive because they won both very little ( Tokyo - Sidney ) .
The ITF evaluated only the majors .
The ATP evaluated all the major tournaments .
I have always considered all the major tournaments .

Summary :
Connors went to skyrocket in the indoor season .
Borg recovered by the usual amazing European season and had a clear advantage after Wimbledon then no one guessed .
Connors had just behind the entrance of the straight US Open because he had won at Indy and Washington .
Borg had already been designated after Wimbledon Champion ITF ( as always .. even in the 76 & 77 !! ?? !! ) .

But 1978 was not finished .
A Flushing Borg played the number 1 , a major on the concrete , the US Open and Grand Slam .... but Connors won .
The last season was not decisive because they won both very little ( Tokyo - Sidney ) .

The ITF evaluated only the majors .
The ATP evaluated all the major tournaments .
I have always considered all the major tournaments .

Summary :
Connors went to skyrocket in the indoor season .
Borg recovered by the usual amazing European season and had a clear advantage after Wimbledon then no one guessed .
Connors had just behind the entrance of the straight US Open because he had won at Indy and Washington .
Borg had already been designated after Wimbledon Champion ITF ( as always .. even in the 76 & 77 !! ?? !! ) .

But 1978 was not finished .
A Flushing Borg played the number 1 , a major on the concrete , the US Open and Grand Slam .... but Connors won .
The last season was not decisive because they won both very little ( Tokyo - Sidney ) .

The ITF evaluated only the majors .
The ATP evaluated all the major tournaments .
I have always considered all the major tournaments .

On assigning the number one between Borg and Connors in 1978 we do not agree , but I 'd do it a problem .
I believe that 1978 of 1977 is even more the exemplification of two types of reasoning .
And I think the three years 1976-1978 is a source of discussion in which we will not find an agreement .
I lived at the time and I realized domain Borg in the biennium 1979-1980 . Basta.
Most of the media write domain Borg 1976-1981 when false historically .

In 1976, Connors was clearly first , won a lot more and getting beat Borg ( there is not even a comparison in my opinion) , in 1977 Connors did a memorable year , but Borg was far and has won very little , the was written in 1978 , 1981 was clearly John Mac .

On assigning the number one between Borg and Connors in 1978 we do not agree , but I 'd do it a problem .
I believe that 1978 of 1977 is even more the exemplification of two types of reasoning .
And I think the three years 1976-1978 is a source of discussion in which we will not find an agreement .
I lived at the time and I realized domain Borg in the biennium 1979-1980 . Basta.
Most of the media write domain Borg 1976-1981 when false historically .

In 1976, Connors was clearly first , won a lot more and getting beat Borg ( there is not even a comparison in my opinion) , in 1977 Connors did a memorable year , but Borg was far and has won very little , the was written in 1978 , 1981 was clearly John Mac .

Click to expand...

Connors IMO was best in 1976 so I agree with you there. It's not a huge gap but Connors was better. IMO Borg from 1977 on was clearly superior to Connors. Most experts ranked Borg ahead of Connors that year. From 1978 onward Borg was IMO not just superior to Connors but superior by a clear margin. The power, volley and serve improved immensely. His 1978 wins at the French was historic for domination in losing only 32 games the whole tournament. He crushed Connors at Wimbledon losing only seven games and I thought Connors played superbly. In 1979 Borg has one of the great all time years in winning 21 tournaments including the French and Wimbledon. He also won the Year End Masters and many other important tournaments.

Jimmy Connors, after almost three years of continuous defeats, finally beat Borg at the much coveted Molson Challenge Cup at Montreal, in 1981.It was not an official tournament, but one of the best exhibition tournaments and Connors was very satisfied with that round robin victory.

I also rate Borg as the clear #1 in '78 (although Connors turned in one of the best world #2 seasons in the Open Era). Among all the other criteria, it's worth noting that Borg outperformed Connors at events they both participated in (a relevant issue during a barnstorming era). Here are their results at these joint events (I put in bold the events where one beat the other):

Many were the tournaments that were worth 8draws type Master1000 or Master500 and piled up with the ATP tournaments .
They picked up the legacy of the Challenge Cup and the Tournament of Champions ' 70s .

Disappeared challenges one on one and quadrangular .
Remained only the Suntory Cup for a few years .

Yes, that's true, but in an era when the ATP wasn't the be all, end all of the tennis landscape, their year-end rankings are just one piece of the puzzle. Borg winning two of the traditional majors and making the finals of another, plus his slight-to-moderate advantage in results at events both he and Connors attended, gives him the clear edge for me in 1978.

Given the systematical problems of evaluating exhibitions in the 70s and 80s, we should look, whether they were not one night stands, and whether they were played for real prizemoney, not appearance money. In 1978 i was at the Gruga Hall, where Borg, Laver, Panatta and Gerulaitis played. There was no prize money involved, and it was an Exhibition. The players went to the disco after the matches (Laver, who had lost his equipment on the flight and played with Borg's clothes and rackets, went to bed). On the other hand, at Frankfurt, where Borg beat Connors in 1979, there was prize money on the line, and that was a real tournament. 4 man tourmanents, which had some tradition, big prize money for the winner and public appeal and wide media coverage, were the Pepsi GS and earlier the Wembley BBC 2 Event.

I do not want to go back on the allocation who was number one in 78 (me and the ranking on the one hand and the "rest of the world" on the other), but on exhibitions, special events, invitational.
They were an important part of the circuit:
70 were made in a number of important exhibitions one on one, many quadrangular and few but very important masters 8draws (ATP currency as rightly titles only Challenge Cup WCT and WCT Tournament of Champions, actual tournaments - but not assigned points as Dallas or other type 8draws Masters GP).
The qudrangular had much less importance as seen more as a real performance that tournament as effective.
This does not mean that for example in Boca Raton the players did not commit. But then the two-Challenge Match Connors-Laver and Connors-Newcombe in 75 had a higher value to the final Wimbledon and US Open!!
And best of all would be worth 150 titles Lendl and Connors!! And you end up talking about GOAT for Federer with those two so stellar distance!!!!
No i 4draws and challenge matchs leave them out.
Over 80 lots instead of the important titles outside ATp, at least a 10%. At least ..

Thank you very much for your answer. I agree, 1977 had a really disorganised tour. I have had lots of difficulties in making my ranking. However, I have posted above a computer ranking which shows Borg as no. 1; mainly because it takes surfaces into account. (It should be remarked that the system above consideres only achievements as I consider other things such as H2H as completely irrelevant for YE#1) However, I would not be surprised if other ranking which does not take surfaces into account also consideres Borg as the player of the year. Both Vilas and Borg won only 1 major (I would not consider the French Open a major in 1977) and also many other tournaments, Vilas has more in quantity but Borg´s are the most prestiguious. Even the current ATP system limits the number of countable minor tournaments, so it can be said that many of Vilas would be uncountable. In conclusion, and especially after my calculations shown above, I think Borg was the true #1 in 1977. I may be wrong though.

Click to expand...

Agree with part of this, I mean the bad touring date...

But, imagine this year, 2015, Nole and Rafa injured, Ferrer get married and take a honeymoon. Roger wins RG... But... NO, it´s fail to Federer to win an deserted (of big players) field.

We will never agree in that. Borg decided to not play in 77, wasn't forced. And Connors? Not problem of Vilas. (USO that year was those 2 on the field and Vilas "still" won it)

But, imagine this year, 2015, Nole and Rafa injured, Ferrer get married and take a honeymoon. Roger wins RG... But... NO, it´s fail to Federer to win an deserted (of big players) field.

We will never agree in that. Borg decided to not play in 77, wasn't forced. And Connors? Not problem of Vilas. (USO that year was those 2 on the field and Vilas "still" won it)

Click to expand...

The problem was not only the French Open in 1977 , where it is not the fault of Vilas if there was Borg and Connors .
The problem is that in 70 years the tournament was worth very little , it was not considered at the level of the two majors .
Acquires more importance from the edition 1979.

Based on argumentation on the first few pages, why hasn't Rosewall been given no.1 status in this thread for one of 64 or 65? Even if the system of the time was faulty, Rosewall was the official number 1 for 1964 even though it could go to Laver and he wins out in more criteria. Laver may have bested Rosewall in titles and h2h in 65 but if that happened today but you only won 1 Slam event to the 2 of a rival, then you might win via the computer but the public would be very divided.

pc1 wrote:

''It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.

So while head to head is quite important, it's clear Rosewall was probably better against the other players than Laver and was perhaps more consistent.''

It seems clear to me that Rosewall should be given co.#1 for either and/or 1964 and 1965.

Also, can somebody explain to me why Laver is considered the clear and undisputed number 1 for 1970 despite not winning a single Major and in fact not even sniffing a final, reaching merely the 4th rounds of Wimbledon and the US Open and not even entering for RG (or the AO).

Click to expand...

The 1964 ranking system was very similar to the 1959 system, even the number of tournaments involved was similar.

For 1962, Rosewall had a much better record than Hoad in major tournaments, and yet he was ranked third in the UPI poll to decide the top player of 1962, Hoad was first and Laver second.

The problem was not only the French Open in 1977 , where it is not the fault of Vilas if there was Borg and Connors .
The problem is that in 70 years the tournament was worth very little , it was not considered at the level of the two majors .
Acquires more importance from the edition 1979.

Click to expand...

Agree, but well I just say it was a major (still). But I see clearly your point man.

I always consider serious invitationals to be included in the player´s record.To me they were those with a tradition that spread for some years, such as Munich ATP GS Cup, Antwerp,Rosemont,Brookline Masters,Pepsi,Molson Challenge and the two WCT events (Forest Hills and WCT Invitational which was played through different venues).We can also include Suntory and Frankfurt but not Europe vs Americas or the Mazda Challenges because those events lasted for just two years

A short list of some year-end #1's who had losing H2H records, in that year, against some other player.

Note: these are players who have been named #1 for these years, but not always unanimously.

1960 - Rosewall 5-16 against Pancho Gonzalez

1964 - Laver 5-8 against Gonzalez
(Rosewall this year was 11-3 against Gonzalez)

1959 - Gonzalez 4-6 against Rosewall

(All of the above are Andrew Tas' stats)

In '58 the Dhahran, Saudi Arabia newspaper, Sun and Flare, previewed the upcoming exhibition by Sedgman and Rosewall, reporting that Sedgman "has defeated world's champion Pancho Gonzalez in four of their last five meetings."

1992 - Courier 0-3 against Becker

1976 - Connors 1-3 against Nastase in sanctioned play, 1-4 including Caracas exo, 1-5 in total per the New York Times

1931 - Vines 1-2 against Gledhill in tournament play

2006 - Federer 2-4 against Nadal

1937 - Vines got the majority of votes as #1 over Perry, but Perry was chosen as number #1 by E.C. Potter of American Lawn Tennis despite losing the US tour to Vines 29-32, though Perry did win their European tour 6-3.